Chen Chu , Jian Li , XiaoDong Yang , HuiJing Zhao , ZaiXian Wu , RuoXin Xu , JianLing Gao
{"title":"重症监护室中的连续葡萄糖监测与传统葡萄糖监测:随机对照试验。","authors":"Chen Chu , Jian Li , XiaoDong Yang , HuiJing Zhao , ZaiXian Wu , RuoXin Xu , JianLing Gao","doi":"10.1016/j.jcrc.2024.154894","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>This study evaluated the clinical utility of <!--> <!-->continuous glucose monitoring system (CGMS) in critically ill patients.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>In this randomized controlled trial, we randomly assigned critically ill participants with diabetes or stress-induced hyperglycemia to the CGMS group (<em>n</em> = 48) or to the conventional point-of-care monitoring (POCM) group (n = 48). The glucose values and clinical outcome were compared between the two group. The primary endpoint was 28-day mortality after intensive care unit admission.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The 28-day mortality was not significantly different between the CGMS and POCM group (20.8% vs 31.3%, <em>P</em> = 0.25). The mean glucose, time-weighted average glucose, glucose standard deviation and time in range (3.9–10.0) were significantly improved in the CGMS group (all <em>P</em> < 0.05).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Compared with conventional POCM, CGMS did not decrease the 28-day mortality in critically ill participants with diabetes or stress-induced hyperglycemia. But CGMS may improve the glycemic control and may be increasingly used in critically ill patients.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":15451,"journal":{"name":"Journal of critical care","volume":"84 ","pages":"Article 154894"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0883944124003812/pdfft?md5=b486439f1f0bf0c4901f265f4401b4b8&pid=1-s2.0-S0883944124003812-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Continuous glucose monitoring versus conventional glucose monitoring in the ICU: A randomized controlled trial\",\"authors\":\"Chen Chu , Jian Li , XiaoDong Yang , HuiJing Zhao , ZaiXian Wu , RuoXin Xu , JianLing Gao\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jcrc.2024.154894\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>This study evaluated the clinical utility of <!--> <!-->continuous glucose monitoring system (CGMS) in critically ill patients.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>In this randomized controlled trial, we randomly assigned critically ill participants with diabetes or stress-induced hyperglycemia to the CGMS group (<em>n</em> = 48) or to the conventional point-of-care monitoring (POCM) group (n = 48). The glucose values and clinical outcome were compared between the two group. The primary endpoint was 28-day mortality after intensive care unit admission.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The 28-day mortality was not significantly different between the CGMS and POCM group (20.8% vs 31.3%, <em>P</em> = 0.25). The mean glucose, time-weighted average glucose, glucose standard deviation and time in range (3.9–10.0) were significantly improved in the CGMS group (all <em>P</em> < 0.05).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Compared with conventional POCM, CGMS did not decrease the 28-day mortality in critically ill participants with diabetes or stress-induced hyperglycemia. But CGMS may improve the glycemic control and may be increasingly used in critically ill patients.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15451,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of critical care\",\"volume\":\"84 \",\"pages\":\"Article 154894\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0883944124003812/pdfft?md5=b486439f1f0bf0c4901f265f4401b4b8&pid=1-s2.0-S0883944124003812-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of critical care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0883944124003812\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of critical care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0883944124003812","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Continuous glucose monitoring versus conventional glucose monitoring in the ICU: A randomized controlled trial
Purpose
This study evaluated the clinical utility of continuous glucose monitoring system (CGMS) in critically ill patients.
Methods
In this randomized controlled trial, we randomly assigned critically ill participants with diabetes or stress-induced hyperglycemia to the CGMS group (n = 48) or to the conventional point-of-care monitoring (POCM) group (n = 48). The glucose values and clinical outcome were compared between the two group. The primary endpoint was 28-day mortality after intensive care unit admission.
Results
The 28-day mortality was not significantly different between the CGMS and POCM group (20.8% vs 31.3%, P = 0.25). The mean glucose, time-weighted average glucose, glucose standard deviation and time in range (3.9–10.0) were significantly improved in the CGMS group (all P < 0.05).
Conclusion
Compared with conventional POCM, CGMS did not decrease the 28-day mortality in critically ill participants with diabetes or stress-induced hyperglycemia. But CGMS may improve the glycemic control and may be increasingly used in critically ill patients.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Critical Care, the official publication of the World Federation of Societies of Intensive and Critical Care Medicine (WFSICCM), is a leading international, peer-reviewed journal providing original research, review articles, tutorials, and invited articles for physicians and allied health professionals involved in treating the critically ill. The Journal aims to improve patient care by furthering understanding of health systems research and its integration into clinical practice.
The Journal will include articles which discuss:
All aspects of health services research in critical care
System based practice in anesthesiology, perioperative and critical care medicine
The interface between anesthesiology, critical care medicine and pain
Integrating intraoperative management in preparation for postoperative critical care management and recovery
Optimizing patient management, i.e., exploring the interface between evidence-based principles or clinical insight into management and care of complex patients
The team approach in the OR and ICU
System-based research
Medical ethics
Technology in medicine
Seminars discussing current, state of the art, and sometimes controversial topics in anesthesiology, critical care medicine, and professional education
Residency Education.